Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15937284›Full record

ArticleProtein science : a publication of the Protein Society2005

Investigation of protein refolding using a fractional factorial screen: a study of reagent effects and interactions.

Melissa Swope Willis, James K Hogan, Prakash Prabhakar, Xun Liu, Kuenhi Tsai, Yunyi Wei, Ted Fox

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Folding the proteome.Trends in biochemical sciences · 2013
    Review
  9. Experimental optimization of protein refolding with a genetic algorithm.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2010
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Refolding active human DNA polymerase nu from inclusion bodies.Protein expression and purification · 2010
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Chapter 3. High-throughput protein purification for x-ray crystallography and NMR.Advances in protein chemistry and structural biology · 2008
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Melissa Swope WillisVertex Pharmaceuticals, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
James K Hogan
Prakash Prabhakar
Xun Liu
Kuenhi Tsai
Yunyi Wei
Ted Fox

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A recurring obstacle for structural genomics is the expression of insoluble, aggregated proteins. In these cases, the use of alternative salvage strategies, like in vitro refolding, is hindered by the lack of a universal refolding method. To overcome this obstacle, fractional factorial screens have been introduced as a systematic and rapid method to identify refolding conditions. However, methodical analyses of the effectiveness of refolding reagents on large sets of proteins remain limited. In this study, we address this void by designing a fractional factorial screen to rapidly explore the effect of 14 different reagents on the refolding of 33 structurally and functionally diverse proteins. The refolding data was analyzed using statistical methods to determine the effect of each refolding additive. The screen has been miniaturized for automation resulting in reduced protein requirements and increased throughput. Our results show that the choice of pH and reducing agent had the largest impact on protein refolding. Bis-mercaptoacetamide cyclohexane (BMC) and tris (2-carboxyethylphosphine) (TCEP) were superior reductants when compared to others in the screen. BMC was particularly effective in refolding disulfide-containing proteins, while TCEP was better for nondisulfide-containing proteins. From the screen, we successfully identified a positive synergistic interaction between nondetergent sulfobetaine 201 (NDSB 201) and BMC on Cdc25A refolding. The soluble protein resulting from this interaction crystallized and yielded a 2.2 Angstroms structure. Our method, which combines a fractional factorial screen with statistical analysis of the data, provides a powerful approach for the identification of optimal refolding reagents in a general refolding screen.

Indexed as

Protein FoldingProtein RenaturationCrystallography, X-RayDisulfidesGuanidineInclusion BodiesProtein DenaturationProteinsRecombinant ProteinsReducing AgentsRoboticsDisulfidesGuanidineProteinsRecombinant ProteinsReducing Agents

Identifiers

PMID15937284
PMCPMC2253366

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.